Slashdot Mirror
Donald Trump Obliquely Backs a Federal Database To Track Muslims
HughPickens.com writes: Philip Bump reports at the Washington Post that Donald Trump confirmed to NBC on Thursday evening that he supports a database to track Muslims in the United States. The database of Muslims arose after an interview Yahoo News's Hunter Walker conducted with Trump earlier this week, during which he asked the Republican front-runner to weigh in on the current debate over refugees from Syria. "We're going to have to do things that we never did before," Trump told Walker. "Some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule." When pressed on whether these measures might include tracking Muslim Americans in a database or noting their religious affiliations on identification cards, Trump would not go into detail — but did not reject the options. Trump's reply? "We're going to have to — we're going to have to look at a lot of things very closely," he said. "We're going to have to look at the mosques. We're going to have to look very, very carefully." After an event on in Newton, Iowa, on Thursday night, NBC's Vaughn Hillyard pressed the point. "Should there be a database system that tracks Muslims here in this country?," Hillyard asked. "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases" Trump said. "We should have a lot of systems." Hillyard asked about implementation, including the process of adding people to the system. "Good management procedures," Trump said. Sign people up at mosques, Hillyard asked? "Different places," Trump replied. "You sign them up at different places. But it's all about management."
The cataloging, rounding up, and internment of the Japanese is one of the darkest and frankly most embarrassing chapters in America's history. I can't believe someone is honestly suggesting that we do this again.
I think they've done this project before.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
No ... I am not proposing this. I am just terrified this is the direction things are headed. The current hysteria over a few mentally unbalanced fanatics really has me worried. The worst thing that can happen is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims, who are as horrified at the actions of IS as the rest of us, are marginalized and dissuaded from helping in rooting out this menace.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/...
Clearly there could be the rise of a charismatic egomaniac who preys on the fears and hatred of the conservatives, making groups out to be the scapegoats (Muslims, gays, immigrants... at least it's not Jews this time around). Everything Trump says about these groups are the same things that Goebbels and Hitler were saying about Jews. We are witnessing the rise of the radical fascists Europe had to deal with 80 years ago. How in the hell are people so damn fucking stupid not to learn from history?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Déjà vu.
even /. can't ignore it. every other media is Trumped-up since that gets the attention. Ventura/Swartzenager were governors and Reagan got the brass ring.
People need to calm down. It's not like Trump said it should run on Windows.
"Trump would not go into detail — but did not reject the options" apparently Not saying "NO" = "YES"
How would the posters that are upset about this feel about applying this to the
Scientologists ?
Aum Shinrikyo ?
Golden Dawn ?
The KKK ?
Neo Nazis ?
Pegida ?
Republicans ?
Libertarians ?
People that have more money than you do ?
Just how do you feel about freedom of speech ? Woodrow Wilson at Princeton ? The Halloween costume of your choice ? Operation Rescue publicizing abortion practices ?
It seems that a lot of people have remembered the first amendment today and will probably forget about it by next week.
not just the neo-con, the democrats are going right in the same direction. It is a well-coordinated movement from the whole society...
The Power of Nightmares 1: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (BBC-2004)
I propose a national registry of everybody running mysql...
Today Trump released a statement saying the Muslim database was the reporter's idea, with his camp and conservative talking heads like Rush Oxycontin Limbaugh implying that the MSNBC reporter was laying a trap for him by asking such a provocative question while Trump was rushed for time. Of course the reporter was laying a trap but since Trump can't resist running his mouth whenever a microphone is put in front of his face he obliged and walked right into it.
Here is a transcript of what the reporter and trump said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
And here is Rush Fathead's spin on it:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/da...
Does anyone here not believe that every citizen and resident's religious, political, and social associations aren't already sitting in federal databases? This is part of what TIA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., Prism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., and many of the related programs were really created for...
Who is this guy and what has he done with Trump? Trump doesn't waffle. Trump doesn't dodge the question. Trump is balls to the wall, 'Murica! Fuck Yeah! in every interview. So who is this guy who won't just say it?
Wait, wait wait. Does Mr. Donald Trump think he's a viable candidate?? Ahahahahahaha
That's funny.
That might be antisemitic. Maybe the ADL will get involved.
Yeah, they might loan Trump their Muslim tracking database.
I have not seen any Democrats proposing anything that even comes close to the things coming out of the Republican party.
Haven't been on a college campus in the last few years? No?
From the Republicans we see religious tests, attempts to deny rights to specific religions, and now a national registry of Muslims of the exact same sort that Hitler used against the Jews.
You mean the "religious test" that current administration routinely applies when considering refugee status, but which the leader of the House explicitly said would be part of no legislation to come from that body? And that "national registry of Muslims" that a reporter conjured up out of thin air, that one? Please cite the language used by "the republicans" as they propose such a thing. Be specific.
it's only one side of the American political spectrum that's pushing for all-out fascism
You don't actually know what word means, do you? The only party that's all about heavy-handed centralized government power and crony corruption is the Democrat party. They love that stuff.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Maybe all the Oracle users should be registered with some sort of central agency. I'm not saying do it, I'm saying we should think about it. Because I'm really really rich. And I'd date my daughter if she wasn't my daughter.
Haven't been on a college campus in the last few years? No?
My point exactly.
Based on the experience IBM has counting people for... other groups. I'll go with Lotus Domino / DB2.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The man is a nut job and I really don't want him as president, but I don't think it is what he meant to say. He is doing the candidate thing and jumping to a talking point, database for Muslims may be what he was asked, but is not the question I think he was answering. With Syrian refugees being a big topic recently, he probably went straight to immigration because that is probably the group he thought he was being asked about. I would like him to publicly clarify. The funny thing about this is the American people are already in a database, multiple databases. SSI, IRS, geology, police, Walmart, Target, gas stations, your local grocery store. That rewards card you use to get a discount on gas or groceries are all there to track your actions in their respective databases. Target knows if you are pregnant based on changes in your purchasing habits. It is still scary, and shouldn't be a thing for a government to keep track of a group of people based solely on their religion.
Quick rant: He scares the crap out of me, he is a ruthless boss. He ran his businesses like a jerk and if elected he will run this country as a jerk and treat the american people like he treats employees. Also, his hair needs a banana for scale.
tldr: He was rushed, answered the wrong question, and was quoted with what I think was a easy misinterpretation. Still a nut job and not fit to govern.
Lately I've been feeling like I'm in a Philip K Dick novel.
Mostly random stuff.
Good move. Republicans are largely temporarily embarrassed millionaires living in their own fantasy world, and bigots. This should give him the bump in the polls that he'll need to win the whole thing.
It's time someone asked The Donald what he thinks of systemd.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Nope. You're living in your own little fantasy world, sponsored by Rush Limbaugh. Trump explained how he'd sign Muslims up for the database.
The reason this is a good move is because people like you are so delusional you'll give him a pass because you would sooner blame the media than pull your head out of your ass.
You are living in denial. Things are getting out of hand in this country, and instead of trying to deny it, you need to take a hard look at the facts of the situation. Just the other day Ted Cruz suggested that we only allow Christians into this country. Multiple Republican candidates just visited a big conference held by some nut who thinks we should execute gay and lesbian Americans. Donald Trump has endorsed setting up a database of Muslims, and there are multiple instances of Trump supporters violently attacking Hispanic Americans. And those are just a few example of right-wing extremism! Don't you see where this is all headed? Can you not understand how dire the situation is becoming? Fascism is already here, and it's not coming from the left.
Gamertag: WyleType
Is there a database of rich guys who have repeatedly bilked investors? Whaddya think, Donald?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't think so. You're still going to want some uniform data like name, address, age, religious sect, country of origin, etc., and a relational database is the best choice for that kind of data since you can make queries on those relations easily. For the unstructured dossier stuff, you can just throw in a big TEXT field or something.
That wascally wabbit tricked him again!
You are welcome on my lawn.
You need to put the koolaid down and take a step back from the slanted rags you are getting your news from.
No republican said anything about a religious test, that was a comment by the president in trying to mis-characterize what was said for political points. No republicans that I know of has attempted to deny rights to any religion unless it is the right to kill innocent civilians. Even this shit Trump supposedly said is completely out of context and if you listen to more than just the snippets, you will find that he was talking about border security and illegal immigrants.
http://www.politico.com/story/...
Gamertag: WyleType
You are living in denial.
And then you say: "Donald Trump has endorsed setting up a database of Muslims" ... which is you denying the truth, because he said no such thing. A reporter said that in the middle of a conversation with a second reporter. Listen to the segment, as if you were a person who has any sort of intellectual honesty, and see who really said what.
there are multiple instances of Trump supporters violently attacking Hispanic Americans
Specific links, please, to show that you aren't also just BSing about that, as well. While you're at it, shall we look for links to coverage of "hispanics" (who are you talking about, exactly?) being violent? No? Would that take the fun out of your rant?
Don't you see where this is all headed?
Yes, it's probably headed to even MORE shrill lefty lying and distortions. It might even result in no immediate reduction in the rampant crime and murder that's ongoing in a some cities that have been run for decades by liberal legislatures and administrations.
Fascism is already here
You're still foggy on the meaning of that word, aren't you?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
That word "obliquely" - I do not think it means what you think it means.
sPh
http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
He is explicitly asked should there be a Muslim-tracking database system to which he replies the whole nonsense about "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases" and "signing up at different places" when asked about signing people up at mosques.
Nobody is putting words in his mouth.
He IS an idiot that does not think or listen to other people and talks in thought-terminating cliches but he clearly understood those questions and replied to them in his poorly thought through manner.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Only someone totally ignorant of history can seriously think that this is what you are looking at today. Hitler is what we'll get, in 10 or 20 years, if we don't get Trump now.
Here are the three options:
1) The American dream dies. The Anglo-American people lose control of their homeland. (80% of the rest of the world dies of starvation shortly after when the replacements discover that the USA wasn't built on magic dirt.)
2) Something similar to nationalism asserts itself in the US. So far, Trump looks like our best shot. He may not believe it, but he is saying all of the right things, and pretty much no one else is. The Anglo-American people retain their homeland. Globalists are offended and some people are relocated, but essentially no one dies.
3) People like you make quasi-nationalism impossible, and the Anglo-American people decide, finally, when they reach the point of collectively having nothing to lose, not to allow their own genocide. Something similar to ultra-nationalism asserts itself with rivers of blood and mountains of corpses. Think of this as Hitler 2.0.
If you think that Hitler rose to power by whipping the German people into a frenzy of hatred against the jews, you'll think I'm nuts. But consider this, they kept the holocaust mostly secret, even from their own people.
If you managed to learn some history despite your education, you'll see the parallels pretty clearly. The German people turned to their National Socialist party because they were the only people strong enough to stand up to the international socialists (aka Communists).
America 2025 is not German 1925, so there will be differences. But the core story is the same, people facing the loss of their country and the death of their nation rarely go peacefully.
I said quasi-nationalism before because I don't think that we will be looking at Nationalism, exactly, but something like it. The threat appears to be facing all of the west together, and I expect the west to be somewhat unified by it. I say somewhat because I don't expect the EU to survive, nor the meddling internationalist institutions around it.
I personally prefer option #2 by a very wide margin, but I think #3 is more likely. If anyone has a 4th option, I'd love to hear it, as long as it doesn't involve magic dirt.
See that "Preview" button?
I couldn't help but notice that you didn't address the comments by Ted Cruz and the fact that multiple candidates attended a "kill the gays" conference. This would imply that you're well aware of these facts, and wanted to draw attention away from them by focusing on another part of my post. Assuming that's the case, I'm asking you now to put aside the partisan vitriol and just stop to think about that for a moment. Those facts alone are fucked up. Really, really fucked up. Something has gone very wrong in this country, and it scares the hell out of me. I want to believe that you care about our nation as much as I do, and I want to believe that you can put aside past loyalties for the good of your country. This isn't a game, and it doesn't get any more serious than this. The right has taken a very dark turn, and we need people on the right to have the courage to pull us back before things go too far.
Gamertag: WyleType
In fact, Christian minorities have a number of special rights under the law, including representation in the parliament. Exactly what kind of country are we trying to become?
Video link, for the skeptical: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
Nope. You're living in your own little fantasy world, sponsored by Rush Limbaugh. Trump explained how he'd sign Muslims up for the database.
I don't like Trump (really, I don't like any of the candidates, but......), but as far as I can tell, he didn't say he'd sign Muslims up for a database. He carefully worded his way around it, continually returning to building a wall (so useful that will be~ ), and generally avoided the reporter's question. Here is the actual transcript, you can judge for yourself. I'm giving my understanding of it, he was careful to avoid saying he would sign Muslims up for a database (and even more avoided how he would accomplish it, "management"):
Hillyard: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?
Trump: There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening in this country happen any longer.
Hillyard: But that’s something your White House would want to implement?
Trump: Oh, I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.
Hillyard: What do you think the effect of that—how would that work?
Trump: It would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming in to our country illegally.
Hillyard: But specifically, how do you actually get them registered into a database?
Trump: It would be just good management. What you have to do is good management procedures. And we can do that. [to someone else] That’s nice.
Hillyard: Do you go to mosques and sign people up?
Trump: Different places. You sign ’em up at different, but it’s all about management. Our country has no management.
Hillyard: Would they have to legally be in this database, would they be—
Trump: They have to—they have to be. Let me just tell you: People can come to the country, but they have to come legally. Thank you very much.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Thanks for posting the transcript. This story is seems like it's being reported accurately, whether he wants to backpedal or not.
Thanks for posting the transcript.
You're welcome, any time.
This story is seems like it's being reported accurately,
Which quote of Trump's specifically are you referring to here? Can you be a little more specific?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
To me it sounds more like having them wear something to single them out... maybe a yellow Star of David, as it worked so well in the past for the last group of fascists.
It did really remind me of the yellow stars.
That being said, do you believe for a *second* that they aren't already doing it? Obvious sources are every college application in the country (which have religious affiliation), facial recognition in photos online (in a picture with a half dozen Muslims?), facial recognition from city cameras (some have substantial tech behind what they do--NYC and DC come to mind), etc..., and that's just the low-hanging fruit.
Quoting the BIBLE:
those who oppose the LORD will be shattered. He will thunder against them from heaven
source
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.
source
The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish.
source
If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed.
source
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.
source
Arise , O LORD; let not man prevail : let the heathen be judged in thy sight.
source
Only because your religious text tells you something to do, you aren't excused to actually do it.
its the wackadoodles that are the problem
when you get past CORE DOCTRINE and start treating Matters Of Faith as Doctrine you run into the problems
Christians in the Group need to remember
1 Corinthians 13:13 (deal with DBR after you prove you are not an Idiotic Jerk)
On the Muslim side
Would you mind NOT blowing things up and disturbing our potluck??
The Roast Beef and Lamb is from our Pastors Farm and was prayed over and everything before slaughter.
"You don't actually know what word means, do you? The only party that's all about heavy-handed centralized government power and crony corruption is the Democrat party. They love that stuff."
Yes, the dems are definitely more open about it. Of course, when the repubs get executive power, it's hard to tell the difference. See "DHS", "Halliburton" for examples.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
There's going to have to be a law patterned after Godwin's about systemd.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
The risk you are hypothesising is worrisome, and I agree that it's plausible.
We are at a point now where it's impossible (thanks to the efforts of some people) to even have realistic discussions about serious adult topics. We have been getting conditioned to accept certain assumptions that are never questioned. The result of which is that the boundaries of the debate are constrained so that no meaningful ideas ever see the light of day. Worse, people are really not very creative. 99.9% of the time, all the debate about whatever topic, is just regurgitating the same tired ideas, and the same false input data. Some assumptions and manipulations of public consciousness about the immigration issues:
1. It's "racist" to not let certain people into your country.
2. There is no need to select immigrants according to the likelihood that they will contribute to the economy.
3. Illegal aliens are "undocumented immigrants." No they are not, they are in the country illegally. Therefore they are not immigrants. They are illegal aliens!
How many of the people arguing for letting anyone into the country, and for giving undocumented/illegal aliens the same access to social services, voting privileges, etc. as citizens or permanent residents always leave their front door unlocked?
Here's what the government should do with all its domestic spying data: Find all the people who advocate letting anyone into the country and giving social benefits to illegal aliens, and fine them in geometrically increasing amounts weekly until they remove all the locks from their dwellings.
You see, the USA (or any nation) is the collective property (estate) of the people in that nation. The people are like a family. Therefore, we have a collective interest to ensure that the people who enter the country are going to preserve and/or increase the value of that estate, and not be the sort of family members that cause harm to other members of the family. This is the same thing we do when we decide who may enter and live with us in our private homes.
If we apply the same logic used about illegal aliens and refugees to the decision about whether or not to lock our doors, the conclusion is:
1. If you lock your door to keep out bad people, you are greedy and selfish for not giving other people a chance to have your stuff. So you should unlock your home.
2. If a random someone comes into your unlocked home and starts making a meal for themselves, and putting their feet up on the table while watching the (sport you don't like) game on your TV, and you call the cops to have them removed, if they happen to be brown or black then you are a racist.
No, the transcript indicates the story is being reported inaccurately.
Clear Question: Hillyard: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?
Dodge, Pivot to safer ground: Trump: There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening in this country happen any longer.
Follow-up, intended to force an answer to originally posed clear question: Hillyard: But that’s something your White House would want to implement?
Trump, believing he has successfully pivoted, pushes further on that line: The rest of the transcript.
It's pretty clear that he's talking about registering and tracking foreign nationals (i.e. with visas) so they don't overstay or cause trouble. This isn't controversial and plays up to his strength.
Follow-up coverage on this conversation has been very disingenuous. Trump is a terrible choice for president (IMHO), but he and his supporters are absolutely right when they complain about unfair treatment by "the media".
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
"There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems." - Donald Trump
"Different places. You sign ’em up at different..." - Donald Trump
That takes out the context of the questions, but the context makes it more clear, we're talking about database. I don't doubt that he wants to backpedal now and cry loudly about media persecution, but that doesn't mean you can dismiss the way this is being reported. He said what he said.
Again, the video link: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
That doesn't say what you think it says. But even if it does, then you have to realize that he is only repeating US law which defines refugee as
There is more so read it if you want. The rest basically allows the president for the same reasons to designate someone or sets of people residing within their usual country under the same set of criteria as a refugee.
So no, it is not a republican implementing any religious test, it is a republican following the law and saying take the people we know fit the definition but ensure they are who and what they say which is what is required elsewhere in the law. This is largely constructed by case law so I'll point you to a lawyer website
I came here to see how many people would be flipping their shit over the idea. I watched the video, and to my disappointment discovered that Trump didn't suggest anything about said Moslim Database, it was the Reporter shoving it down his throat. And if you listen to the conversation, it seems like the Reporter and Trump are talking about two completely different things!
Come on, ppl!
It's occurred to me that there is some cognitive dissonance going on:
When articles come up about H1B visas, it seems that a majority complain that it should be limited because they believe the evil tech. and software corporations just want more H1Bs so they can fire US born workers and replace them with cheaper workers.
But when the kind of people being considered to allow into the country are Mexicans who have nothing of value in Mexico so try (and do) come into the USA illegally, or random refugees, migrants, etc. from some extremely poor and/or war-torn nation, then it is considered racist to propose any sort of restrictions on their entry.
WTF?
Let's just apply the same standards from now on to all potential immigrants: If you object to letting in an arbitrary number of H1B visa applicants, you are a racist!
Visas and foreign nationals were not even mentioned, and you completely left out the very next part where he was asked, "Do you go to mosques and sign people up?", and he says, "different places..."
That's one hilarious bit of spin you've got there. Can you see the back of your own teeth up there?
The first sentence you quoted carefully avoids answering the question. No one will disagree that we should have a lot of systems beyond databases. It's a non-answer to a reporter's question. Typical politician tripe.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Oh my, you're going for a Godwin's law violation here. "No one will disagree that we should have a lot of systems beyond databases."
lollerz. Good spin attempt, I guess. Insofar as all spin is actually really shitty. The media has reported this correctly, whether you like it or not.
Yeah, I used to think that too. Then someone pointed out that Christians have their own book, called imaginatively, the "New Testament". Most of that kind of stuff is not in there, and Christians are expected to live by the new moral code, not the old. It doesn't always work that way in practice, but that's the basic theory, anyways.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Oh my, you're going for a Godwin's law violation here
Oh really? How? Do you think talking about systems is a fulfillment of Godwin's law?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I don't know who of them is worse.
There is nothing political about the simplicity of this exchange. To people familiar with the campaign coverage, this is trivial to unravel.
Don't like the question? Spin it to familiar ground, hit your talking points. The reporter keeps trying to talk about muslim registration, but Trump just wants to talk about the border. Or federal mismanagement in general. Or watching out for radical clerics.
Recall that this is a verbal exchange in a crowded room. He's even carrying on multiple conversations at the same time. He isn't paying attention to the reporter, so he's just kind of rattling off lines from his stump speech. There is literally zero content in this exchange, but Hillyard is jizzing himself because he thinks he's caught Trump in an all-timer of a gotcha.
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
and trying to divert attention from the real candidates (Jeb & Rubio) while they go around the country trying out their material and wooing billionaires. He's basically a shield, which is why the Republican's tolerate him. He has the added bonus that he riles up the crazies and will make sure they come out and vote. Make no mistake, Trump is nothing but good to the Republican party...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Who gives a shit about Trump. He doesn't even listen to himself. He just opens his Trump hole and whatever you get out of it is whatever you get out of it. But you know, as long as we're wiping our ass with the Constitution anyway, gun violence kills a lot more Americans than terrorism does. Can we do away with that lot, too? Clearly they don't have any respect for the constitution (Or, probably, any idea what's in it) so it should be a no-brainer, right? Or is that one of those "hard" questions that hurts their feelings so much in the debates?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Trump is popular exactly because of these bullshit attacks. He's popular because Americans are *just* smart enough to see through attacks like this one, and feel the need to defend him. He's like Oliver North and Hillary Clinton squared. They get attacked unfairly, and people rush to their defense.
"Trump Obliquely backs a database of muslims"
Yeah, for extremely false values of "Obliquely".
A reporter mentioned a database, and Trump said something other than "go fuck yourself", so that's a "tacit" endorsement of a database. In languages where "tacit" means "not".
Full disclosure: I'm a liberal who gives money to Democrats. I'm just sick of people giving Trump oxygen by attacking him unfairly. If you can't figure out a way to attack him fairly, your'e really, really. really. really. really, really, not trying.
Totally agree. WaPo editorial board really thinks they can say anything they want.
The irony of this is that it will fuel Trump. He will (correctly) say the press is out to get him, and the press won't have any credibility when they print actual dumb stuff Trump says.
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
"Only seeing what you want to see is a very annoying human ability."
Which you demonstrated quite adequately. The video link is up there. Trump was talking about entering Muslims into a database, going to mosques, or different places.
Remain skeptical. Always. Including when you have to dismiss a Rush Limbaugh talking point because you acquired the information available in a simple video link, which, from your description of the events, it's not clear that you have even watched.
Video link, again: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
You apparently want to defend what Trump said by saying it's spin now, not whether his words are being reported correctly. It doesn't matter whether it's spin or not, he said what he said, and it's being reported accurately.
Trump will gain significant ground if he can spin this both as red meat for the bigots, and media persecution for the mentally unkempt.
You are in the latter, good for you.
Didn't we just recently learn the government is keeping track of ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY?
What difference does this make?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Because you, like Trump, were formulating your responses in the context of the following question:
Hillyard: Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?
Tracking people of a specific religion is something Hitler would do. I am starting to think that the reason so many people fall for the Republican's media persecution ruse is that you're really just a little too stupid to follow what's going on in a conversation.
Alright, let's try it this way:
There was some question about what was said, what he meant, etc. So, he tweeted today that he was talking about a watch list, while the reporter was talking about an all-muslim database. Why disbelieve him? There is a simple explanation here, but you choose to believe a wild conspiracy theory in which Trump has a secret plan that he accidentally tells everyone twice.
Simple, obvious, and in line with all the rest of the facts. I don't like Trump, but I don't hate him enough to stop thinking when his name is uttered.
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
I watched the video and it seems clear to me he misheard the questions. He never uses the word Muslim himself. the reported just put it out there and it seems clear he thought the question is do we register immigrants.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
There are many accurate negative things to be said about Trump, but he's not Hitler. Neither was Bush, and Obama is not the antichrist.
Trying to compare politicians to legendary evil villains only muddies the water for the real debate.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Okay, watch the video link, and try to note what was actually said (the words that were actually spoken): http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
The story is being reported correctly. He said what he said, there is no need for a conspiracy theory.
If you are willing to believe the never-ending Republican refrain that they are being persecuted by the mainstream media, then you're simply willing to look past what they actually say, on camera, an example of which is right there in the link. That will help them. It's a dullard's belief system. It lets them off the hook for saying very stupid shit.
So you are in their camp for that, but Trump also gets points for tossing some flesh to their extremely bigoted base. I never once said this was bad for Trump. He'll get a boost from this for all the wrong reasons, of which you are one very, very dismissive, dissembling example.
"Do not believe this vicious attack by the mainstream media, even though they have clear video evidence. I was talking about systemvinit when the words 'Trump' and 'all' were spoken by somebody, I don't know who. Penguins really like me, I am popular with many different Peanuts characters. We need a firewalld. #Trump2016"
Is he a stooge or a super genius? You're going back and forth.
This may be the first raw transcript you've seen. Raw transcripts always have wrong information and contradictions because they accurately reflect the words we say. The way people speak is a mess. It's up to a good reporter to contextualize it and report the meaning of a particular sentence rather than the exact words spoken.
Recent examples:
Obama: "My muslim faith....", "we’re speeding up training of ISIL forces..."
A good reporter looks at that transcript, figures out that, in this context, he's talking about borders and a beefing up of terrorist watch lists. He's dodging and playing coy with the more explosive "muslim watch list". A shitty reporter (or one blinded by ideology) calls that a confirmation. A good reporter knows he doesn't have anything and moves on. A shitty reporter thinks he just made his career.
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
I'm talking about YOU. Again, it seems more clear now than ever that you buy the media persecution ruse because you're not able to follow a conversation with any meaningful depth.
If you are drunk, I can understand. In fact, I would prefer to hear that you are under the influence of something right now. It would explain a lot.
Again, it seems more clear now than ever that you buy the media persecution ruse
Who said anything about media persecution? Certainly not me.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I never said he was either a stooge or a super genius. This may be the first conversation you have participated in because you clearly can't tell what is actually being said, you're whaling away at some imagined argument.
I will link the video for you again, because you are talking about a transcript, despite the fact that a primary source is right there at your fingertips:
http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
You keep it up, though. Enough people are willing to pretend they have all the facts themselves, and the mainstream media is just out to get Republicans. I do not think I am winning over many people, but it should be clear to anybody reading this conversation, who has any experience with critical thinking, that you are not following it correctly.
The thread you are posting in is titled, "Liberal misinformation." Did you somehow miss that part? That would, once again, show a deficiency in reading comprehension consistent with my assessment that you cannot follow a multifaceted conversation, and thus are vulnerable to the media persecution ruse.
The media persecution ruse indicated, once again, in this "liberal misinformation" thread in which you are currently participating.
But it's not a theory I espoused, nor is it one I subscribe to. Somehow you assumed I do. You probably assumed a lot of things about me.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
According to Thomas Aquinas, whose teachings are highly respected within at least the Catholic church, there are three types of law in the Old Testament: moral, judicial, and ceremonial. The moral laws are permanent, being the ethical foundation of the old and new laws. The judicial laws, though no longer binding, are no sin to follow, as they are built upon the moral laws. The ceremonial laws are forbidden, as to follow them would be to declare the old covenant still binding (this is why Catholics do not keep kosher).
All of the above quotes can be classified as either judicial or moral laws under Aquinas. You can also classify Deuteronomy 13:9 as judicial law - so modern Catholicism would not consider it a serious sin to stone apostates.
I'll let someone else explain the Orthodox or Protestant views on following the Old Testament. I'm even less an expert at those than I am Catholicism.
I hardly ever lock my door.
Then again I live in Canada.
You posted the following question:
"Who said anything about media persecution?"
I answered it thusly: "The thread you are posting in is titled, 'Liberal misinformation.'"
There is an answer to your question buried in there somewhere. I get that you apparently do not like the fact that you are feeding a well-defined Republican persecution complex, but you asked a question (see the quote), and then I answered it (see my quote below it).
Was that answer not sufficient? Do you not yet know, "who said anything about media persecution"? Either way, I would also like to invite you to look literally anywhere else in this /. posting. Every other post is complaining about the reporting. Trump said what he said, do not try to shoot the messenger. Republicans would absolutely love to get away with all their bullshit with that simple out.
I get that you apparently do not like the fact that you are feeding a well-defined Republican persecution complex
Not at all. I just don't like it when people misinterpret the words of someone, even if I don't like that person.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You know, having some faith or being an atheist is not something you need to disclose or be honest about or which even needs to be constant. On the second-to-last census form, I wrote "Jedi Knight" and on the last one they sensibly allowed you do decline to answer or I would have put in "Pastafarian" (not US though).
Incidentally, while Christianity is an older and hence more sedate religion, it has a pretty bloody history and the argument is BS. It does come down to the individual person, not what their religion is. Fanatics are primarily fanatics, not fanatics for a specific religion or world-view. My guess would be that Trump just wants to track everybody and uses Muslims as a pretext for establishing the system for that. Once it works, add a bit more storage and you can easily keep tabs on everybody. After all, these days citizens are presumed guilty until proven otherwise.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
There is no misinterpretation. The video link, for the umpteenth time: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
What else will you allow politicians to say and then allow them completely off the hook? The reporting is the reporting. His words are there. If he clarifies or backpedals later, do not shoot the messenger who gave the first reports.
You are shooting the messenger who reported his initial words. That's a well-known Republican tactic that has been used over and over again this political season. By contrast, Democrats will clarify or backpedal but they will rarely if ever say the initial reports were biased, and evidence that the whole world is against them.
We should probably bring in more context at this point. Marco Rubio says the mainstream media is the biggest SuperPAC in the world for the Democrats. That is so absurd, but it got so many cheers in the last debate. Does that lend any extra context to what you are doing here?
To summarize: the initial reports were not inaccurate by any means. The video link is there. Republicans blame the media to get away with all manner of bullshit, and you are both apparently ignorant of the tactic, and an enabler by promoting a bullshit counter-narrative to Trump's database of Muslims.
In actual reality, they have the same goals, but Hitler was both more honest and had more style. But yes, Fascism is on the raise in the west, just like the last few catastrophes in that regard had not happened. People are stupid. And incidentally, Hitler was voted into office (30% votes, but strongest faction), otherwise he may have never been able to take over. A false-flag terrorist act (burning down of the Reichstag) also featured prominently there. Seems to be a pattern that is now being repeated to promote just the same mind-set as back then.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
So can you explain why Christians were still executing heretics and blasphemers well into the modern era, or whu Evangelicals still oppose gay rights?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Video link, for the skeptical: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/t...
I'm the child of a muslim... personally atheist but reasonably scared by this headline... Watched the video and it's just some jargon about a wall and immigration. Of course he's advocating for nothing in particular, probably nothing congress would pass, but what we're seeing here is sensationalist nonsense from a journalist. Trump is obviously not listening to him, or barely listening to him. Thanks white people for wasting my time. I thought I was going to have to arm myself to defend my constitutional rights against fascism. Turns out the media "GOTCHA" ...
What do you mean he's advocating for something that congress would never pass? Is he advocating something, or not?
Blaming the media for stupid shit that politicians say is something that every politician would absolutely love. Don't blame the media, blame Trump's lack of comprehension if you want to go easy on him. Blaming somebody other than them lets them off the hook, allows them to be sloppy, and, worse, if he actually meant this, it lets him play both sides of the coin. In that case, it is both red meat for the bigots, and an appeal to the media persecution complex that has so pervaded the Republican party it is now their default.
Blame Trump for his own sloppiness, or, like Ben Carson, they'll be intentionally sloppy and then play it off later.
You're still foggy on the meaning of that word, aren't you?
Sure, if you look at the dictionary, fascism is gonna be described as right wing authoritarian regime. But if you look closely, the left is now pretty much using the same argument as the far right was using 20 years ago. Though, real fascism was essentially only an Italian movement. If you look as nazism, it *is* a socialist movement. The engligh for "Nazi" being" National Socialist German Workers' Party "
The exchange was a trap by the reporter, after Trump just finished a long speech and was obviously tired. And even then, from the context it is obvious that Trump shifted his response to the Trump Wall, and he was talking mainly about that.
At no point did Trump actually say "yes we need Muslim database". As for "free interpretations", well, there are a thousand databases on EVERYONE already, including suspected terrorists.
In short, the press set up Trump. And everyone including Slashdot, fell for it. The result will only be increased support for Trump, because we the people see through the media's attempts to smear him. The circus is over.
I was always under the impression that Christians regard the entire Bible as the revealed Word of God, and that you don't get to pick and choose. Thanks for correcting that nonsense they taught me in Religious Ed when I was a kid.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Holy false dichotomy, Batman!
It is possible and indeed more realistic to assume that MOST of the refugees are the real deal and that a FEW of them might be plants.
The fact that a few of them are ISIS plants does not make all of them or even the majority of them ISIS operatives or even sympathisers.
MOST of them are folks who don't want to live in a war zone, or in a false "Caliphate" run by psychotics.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Knowing the history and knowing the enormous breach of freedom this is, how can any presidential candidate not immediately answer "noooo! NO ! double no !" alone on the US and European historical precedent and the breach of constitutionality ? Remember they are supposed to uphold the constitution when elected.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Maybe get them to sew a little crescent moon on their clothes. And tracking is so, so hard and would be easier if we could segregate them into areas with high walls and guard towers. Obviously this will be disruptive so by way of compensation we can build them an excellent rail network which transports them to a "holiday" destination so wonderful they'll never come.
"Sysrammer's law" has a nice ring to it, and also a connotation of exactly what is going on when systemd is installed.
Yeah, I used to think that too. Then someone pointed out that Christians have their own book, called imaginatively, the "New Testament".
I hate to invite certain rather obvious comparisons here, but you're literally saying it's fine to apply it to Jews then. The Jewish texts are more or less the old testament, with none of the wishy-washy liberal new crap. It's all vengeful desert god all the time.
SMITE!
and Christians are expected to live by the new moral code, not the old. It doesn't always work that way in practice, but that's the basic theory, anyways.
So you'd be happy applying it to the denominations or churches which rather over emphasise the old testament then?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The only party that's all about heavy-handed centralized government power and crony corruption is the Democrat party. They love that stuff.
Um, I think you may have been so blinded by your "rah rah my party you suck rah rah" cheering that you can't see the blindingly obvious right in front of you. Both parties are pretty much equally bad in this regard. If you get over your inane tribalism you might actually see that.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Nearly 12,000 Germans were interred during WW II as well.
I'm never quite sure why when internment is mentioned that this is left out. It could be that it's because it's historically obscure or smaller than the number of Japanese interred.
Or could just be that the fact that Germans were interred doesn't fit the "because racism" narrative of internment.
I gave you a link to a video where he is explicitly asked should there be a MUSLIM tracking database.
Not refugee, not immigrant, not Bosnian, Syrian, French, Belgian or Vulcan.
He was explicitly asked should there be a religion-based tracking system.
To which he replied yes, expanding it to "a lot of systems".
The "out of context" situation you are imagining never happened. Explicit question - followed by a mindbogglingly retarded answer.
Now... you can prattle on about him talking about something else, or being confused, or senile, or drunk... which caused him to hear "MUSLIM-tracking" and translate that to "whatever it is that YOU think is less volatile".
The fact is that this is just another case of him showing that he is thinking in "ferner" generalizing metaphors - mostly about brown people.
You know... like those Mexican drug-dealers, criminals and rapists.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
DB2. IBM has experience with that kind of thing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What makes you think you know anything about my party affiliation or lack of it? Your own rah-rah is showing.
And no, both parties are NOT equally bad in this regard. The vast majority of conservatives (who have plenty of cultural problems in the bus along with them, in the form of die-hard religious types, to be sure) are uniformly opposed to expanding government power over your personal daily life. They're not the ones trying to tell you what size drink cup you can buy, which medical services you must pay for (but only from these government-partnered sources!), which of the new 8,000 (!) new regulations issued every year may or may not make you a criminal this year while doing the same things you did last year, etc. The general disposition of the two parties is significantly different when it comes to the role of government in every day life.
When someone does something stupid, the republican's first instinct is to say, "What kind of upbringing did that person have, that they thought that was acceptable behavior?" while the democrat's immediate take on it is, "What kind of additional tax should we charge in order to fund a government program and new government employees and bureaucracy in order to attempt to control that behavior, or at least treat it as a new source of revenue?"
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Cause I linked (and quoted) a video of him hearing, thinking over and replying to an explicit "MUSLIM-tracking question".
He replied with a YES. Adding that there should be "a lot" of tracking systems, beyond databases.
Which makes your either-or question a deliberate lie. Not just a terribly embarrassingly set up false dichotomy.
I'm getting fremdschamen just thinking of it.
So it's not a question did I hear the actual exchange. The question is are you just a troll, an idiot, delusional or some combination thereof.
Now, to that the answer would be irrelevant. To me.
But you should check that and hope that you're just a dickhead troll. Mental illness is not something to be taken lightly.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
he agreed with the suggestion, knowing this his weaseling around hte word would get his stupid supporters to defend him
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
he agreed with the suggestion, knowing this his weaseling around hte word would get his stupid supporters to defend him.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
And while we're at it we could move them to special places for their own safety, where they may also be among themselves.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Had you said a glorified brick salesman it would have made more sense while being less of an exaggeration.
As for obfuscation, he must have went to the Giorgio A. Tsoukalos school of obfuscation and denial.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Trump: Why would I want to track myself, I know where I am!
Interviewer: I said ragheads, not rugheads.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Ha, but neither did you say you were against making Muslims wear identifying symbols... you republican racist!!!!!!!111!!!!11!!!!1!!!!!!
Its one thing to hassle somebody with questions on the street at no notice with a microphone shoved up their ass, but then to take nothing he said and spin it into some OMG story is just purely the worst kind of "journalism".
I don't mind attacking Trump on what he thinks and says, but to attack him on what he didn't say is getting to be silly. Ever wonder why politicians refuse to say anything - this is why, whatever they do say will be picked apart and turned into something else by journos trying to make a story.
I've heard variations on this story for the last few days and I wish I were surprised it keeps getting reported with all of the relevant portions removed that make it a non story. If you listen to the raw audio or read the text you will see he basically ignores the question that was asked and talks about building a wall to control illegal immigration.
Reporter : "Should there be a database system that tracks the Muslims that are in this country?"
Trump : "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems, and today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border. We have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what's happening to this country happen again."
REPORTER: But is it something your White House would like to implement?
TRUMP: Oh, I would certainly implement that, absolutely.
REPORTER: What do you think the effect of that would be? How would that work?
TRUMP: It would stop people from coming in illegally. We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally.
If you only react what someone tells you is true and don't check the raw information it's easy to be misled. Trump will say a lot that some people won't agree with or downright hate, but at least let it be his stances you don't like and not a reporter inferring what he meant by interpreting the answers to fit the scenario he prayed would play out or a channel editing it to make the soundbites fit the emotion they want to place in you.
I'm all for equality, so my database would be open to groups of any race/religion/gender that has shown by their own actions that they have a systemic policy of murder of civilians to promote/enforce their own religion.
I'd also remove groups if they have gone say 30 years without haveing performed any such action otherwise the database would be self-defeating.
. Lack of clarity is not a means to weasel out of anything later.
Are you kidding? 'Weaseling out' is why people hate politicians. It's been standard technique for centuries.
The GOP basically needs a real candidate to beat Hilary and they don't really have one. They don't even have a candidate as good as Romney or McCain and that's pretty sad.
I agree with you there (except about McCain.....remember you're talking about the guy who chose Palin as his running mate. He isn't someone who makes good decisions).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It doesn't get clearer than that. There is no twisting of words, or meaning
It's extremely ambiguous. What does "that" refer to?
Remember, politicians are even willing to argue about the definition of the word "is"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That sounds entirely reasonable. I would support that on the condition that the rest of the world denies Americans access to their countries.
Even there it sounds like a win.
Now if we could just get your military back within your borders, the world would be a much better place.
Requiem for the American Dream
Good luck getting the schema solidified, Trump is vague like his life depended upon it.
Requiem for the American Dream
a list of the worst things that have happened in the recorded history of the world, the USA's enslavement of black people would be right up near the top of the list
But not the European enslavement of black people? Or the enslavement of black people by OTHER black people that predated any European enslavement of black people? Or the still ongoing enslavement of black people by other black people (and Arabs, etc) that's happening right now? Your focus on the "USA's" enslavement (as if that institution wasn't in place for a couple of European-controlled centuries in North America and in Europe before there even was a USA) is pure drivel, and you know it. And then your fake ignorance of the intellectual and eventually physical civil war that erupted over and led to the practice of ending slavery - a cause to which untold thousands of white Americans gave their lives - that's a pretty tall order of disingenuous cherry picking on your part.
I would put helping poor people first
That would be nice. The first thing to do would be to stop voting for the people who have been conducting their "war on poverty" for decades, and who have done nothing but create a multi-generational ocean of people dependent on the vast bureaucracy and spending that that effort has ginned up. You want to see fewer people in poverty? Stop rewarding multiple births in single-parent households where absent fathers and disinterested mothers create rudderless, illiterate, unskilled, and often drug-addicted, violent kids even in areas where their cities spend enough per child on education to put three other kids through top quality private schools in any other place. The problem you're talking about, shy of true mental illness, isn't about resources. It's about local culture. Period. If you really think that you need to fix that, you have to take kids out of that environment and raise them away from it. Are you ready to make that case? Ready to take kids from their toxic neighborhoods and homes so they don't repeat the cycle of ignorance and a criminal world view? No? Then what sort of "help" did you have in mind, specifically? Give them more stuff? Spend more than $10,000 per student per year on school?
Wait. I know. We should rid their neighborhoods of the crime that plagues those places, so they can pursue a more constructive life. How should we do that? Perhaps make sure that the local criminal gangs aren't staffed up with members that cycle repeatedly through the legal system and return to commit the same crimes over and over again? Nope, can't do that, because that involved police, and we all know that police are now officially evil, and locking up violent gang members is officially racist. Looking forward to your specific suggestions, and explanations as to why they've never been tried before or have never worked before, but will now, because of how you're suggesting them.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I think you're getting it. The Republican party needs to stop blaming the media for its politician's bullshit. He's weaseling out with a very specific lob, shooting the messenger, introducing uncertainty and distrust of the media.
Everybody should always remain skeptical, but the Republican party gets this get out of jail free card where they get to blame the media, claim superiority over the facts, and suffer no consequences among their base for their extraordinary bullshit.
Eh. It's a politician thing. Politicians have been blaming the media for centuries, and probably will continue to do so as long as it works.
Q: How can you tell if a politician is lying?
A: Check if his lips are moving.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'm all for equality, so my database would be open to groups of any race/religion/gender that has shown by their own actions that they have a systemic policy of murder of civilians to promote/enforce their own religion.
So you're in favour of tracking all men? Bear in mind the majority of murders in the name of religion are committed by men.
Also how do you define "religion"? Where do you draw the line as "different religion" for the purposes of your database in the following:
Abrahamic, Christian, Protestant, Baptist, Baptist Church of God, Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation 1879.
Would you track all Shia Muslims based on what a Sunni terrorist group does?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
And no, both parties are NOT equally bad in this regard.
Yeah they are. It's all about power. They don't care about the little people, they want to collect as much power for themselves as possible.
The vast majority of conservatives (who have plenty of cultural problems in the bus along with them, in the form of die-hard religious types, to be sure) are uniformly opposed to expanding government power over your personal daily life. ...
Well either that's true and the vast majority of conservatives always vote against their own interests or it's crap.
When someone does something stupid, the republican's first instinct is to say,
I'll say this much for you, you do have an entertainingly simplistic view of the world.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The problem is that the whole thing lends itself to "wackadoodles". You have an entire system of belief based on nothing but hearsay ... Then people believe this stuff with no evidence for it ... take some part of that "literal truth" and decide that it really means you need to go murder some people.
Unfortunately, trying to stop it also has bad history. Meme-infected people tend to remain meme-infected until death when opposed (because opposition tends to reenforce such memes), and forcible brain-washing normally doesn't work (though it may get them to pretend to have changed their beliefs, in order to make the pain stop or avoid death or mutilation). Meanwhile there's a long history of people infected with OTHER religious memes using governmental power to wipe out the believers in competing religions.
The history of Europe, in the centuries before the framing of the US' Constitution, was full of disastrous religious wars, and many of the religious groups in the Americas were here to escape this. One of the groups was "The Separatists", the (colorfully dressed "Pilgrims" of the Plymouth colony, often conflated with the "Puritans" who settled a bit farther north) who held, as a core belief,the separation of the church and the state (because each would corrupt the other).
This ideal was built into the first Amendment of the Bill of Rights, pushed by many leaders of small religions (who knew that, if the government picked and promoted a church, it was unlikely to be theirs, and the religious wars would start over here). The US federal government (and, though "incorporation", the states and their subdivisions) is prohibited from doing anything, for or against, any specific religion (including dogmatic non-religion).
And Islam was known to the framers. It shows up in their debates, where it is held up as an example of a non-Christian religion for which the same arguments can be made, for and against, as are made with respect to Christian sects.
So tracking people by religion, as religion, is right out, and any such plan would almost certainly be gutted the first time it hits the courts.
If the government wants to go after the I.S. brigands, it needs to frame the laws and activities in terms of their civil actions, without respect to any religious motivations or professed religious claims.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Trump exact words:
Yeah, I'm sure the Bundy ranch family and friends who pointed high-velocity firearms at Federal law enforcement officers, and anti-choice terrorists, will both be in that database. Sure.
sPh
The hard Radical Right pushback attempt has failed utterly. Here's another through documentation of Trump saying exactly that he proposes to create a national tracking database singling out members of a specific religion: http://www.vox.com/2015/11/20/...
The dog whistle dropped down into audible range this time and it is repugnant.
sPh
By the way, the time is about 5 years past when simply throwing out the word "liberal" causes reality-based folks to cower in fear and allow the mainstream media to fall in line with the hard Radical Right line without serious and vociferous counterattack. You can put your magic totem back in the skin bag: it doesn't work any more.
No he is not, he is saying let them in now. There is a difference. Right now, the only clearly demonstrable refugees according to existing US laws are the Christians who face beheading, crucifixion, torture, and death. Furthermore, even if the Muslims are qualified because of their religion, we are not seeing the Christians killing others in the area because of their Christian beliefs or declaring death to America and it's allies which is another part of the law's requirement. A refugee cannot be a threat to national security or the country nor can a person who participated in such atrocities that qualified others as refugee be considered a refugee under US law.
http://dianadigunawan.blogspot... i hope the world peace.
Oops. Time to update the talking points:
I'm sure Trump didn't really say that either.
sPh
If "the" dictionary claims fascism as "right wing", it's wrong. Fascism is characterized by nationalism and government control of property (especially business) with property ownership remaining in private hands in name only. Since "right wing" is based first on the right to life and second on property rights, fascism and the right are mutually exclusive.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If you're not from my caste/religion, you're non-human to me; I can abuse/exploit/rape/harm you; Brahmin are covertly promoting caste for past 2000 years in your country; http://wh.gov/iyhMK
Casteism
Abject nonsense. I'm sure it makes you feel better, but it's clearly insane to try to reason that point. Either you are right, or the experts are right. I wonder which is more likely...
While not probably obvious, I'm sure many such "databases" exist already, they just are not really out there in the public consciousnesses.
For example, the "No Fly List". where do you think that comes from? How are people put on it? What criteria does it take to be put on it? Etc... I remember a story years ago, that Cat Stevens was mistakenly put on the list, probably in part because when he converted to Islam he changed his name for example.
So while people are getting all high and mighty about the topic, I am sure meany such questionable measures have been in place in the US for many years already. At least he is being upfront about it, insofar as any politician can be.
Personally I think it is wrong, and over the top, but then again, "over the top" is basically Trumps campaign in a nutshell!
>> you don't get to pick and choose.
How can that even work when the bible, ((just like the quran, the torah and most other religions books), isn't even consistent with itself?
>> So you're in favour of tracking all men?
No, like I said, just the ones that are in religious groups that advocated/perpitrated murder in the last 30 years.
Republicans have made part of their very being; their lifeblood, and one of their most central themes - that "the media" or "mainstream media" is out to get them. It drives conservatives to distrust most media sources (google Pew Media Polarization)
They are right in a sense - most media outlets absolutely try to drive a narrative, exaggerate, and push for viewers and clicks when they can.
But they do it selectively, in all directions, against whoever. And Democrats do not complain, in part b/c liberals don't want to hear the excuses, and conservatives would just scream even louder about media bias.
That is why all that is required is skepticism. Always. Even when Republicans are bitching about the media like the parent of this thread. It's BS to say this event wasn't covered accurately, and if Trump wants to backpedal, that's on him, not this reporter.
And Democrats do not complain,
Seriously dude, you must have the worst partisan bias of all time. You need to fix that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I guess I'd better get it into Wikipedia asap so it becomes real. Can I reference your post so my article isn't considered Original Research?
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Of course. Then we'll post a story to slashdot covering it so that Wikipedia can reference it too, then delete the original reference and the entire circle will be complete. :-)
Dems do not make it a central tenant of their entire existence to bitch about the media.
Did you not hear Marco Rubio say the "mainstream media" is the biggest SuperPAC in the world for the Dems? Did you not watch the debate, where Ted Cruz got the loudest cheers of the night for bitching about CNBC's questions?
Since you apparently don't pay attention, and you can't google for yourself, here are some articles:
http://www.journalism.org/2014...
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/28/...
Pay attention. It's not just that the entire Republican constituency thinks the media is out to get them, it's that their biggest politicians get points for crying like little babies over things like this, with Trump, and Cruz.
Did you pay attention to the fact that the biggest politician of them all, President Obama, was also complaining about the media?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's few and far between, unlike the never ending refrain from every Republican politician. Conservative media teaches distrust of the mainstream, while liberal media, which may levy a complaint once in a blue moon, doesn't make it a central issue.
Did you even read the Pew Poll? Democrats/liberals are less likely to simply buy this argument from any source, because they don't have that massive trust issue.
You've already demonstrated your complete lack of statistical intuition. If you're not going to believe the actual statistics, you are simply living in a fantasy world.
Conservative media teaches distrust of the mainstream
? Do you trust the mainstream?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Always be skeptical. Actually, the rhetoric is usually against, "the media," but I'm trying to hedge against you saying, "but what about Fox News?"
Trust but verify to the best of your ability. I listened to some Ann Coulter on Hannity's radio show with someone else filling in for him on my holiday drive. They couldn't go more than 45 seconds without bashing some other media source. Have fun with that group, guy. I'll take the, "mainstream," NYT, LAT, and local news over those fools, and Fox News.
No, it doesn't replace it. It ended as it had been completed - fulfilled. The documentation of the old still exists, like an old car that's out back. You can still look it over, study on it to see how the new car came about, and see the progress made from then to the new ones. The old can be studied to better understand the new. The new didn't push the old over and replace it. It simply began where the old ended. If you were able to understand the Bible, and from your comment there's no doubting that you don't and can't, you'd see that what you say doesn't even compare to being correct. You can't take ignorance of the truth, think and state something completely wrong, and expect it to have more weight to it than the truth, or for it to be accepted as correct when what it's in reference to shows something entirely different. Fact is the truth is hidden from those that don't want the truth. That can't be disputed, for it being hidden it can't be seen, by those not wanting the truth, therefore they can't see or know it to prove otherwise. Being Christian I know the truth of God and His Word. It being obvious that you're not, and don't seek the truth, it's not possible for you to know the truth. Those are facts, as can be seen by your very words.
You're comparing NYT to Fox News. The primary difference there isn't party affiliation, it's quality of the product.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
How many more straw men are you going to construct? I compared a lot more than that. You haven't even read the Pew poll. I'm sorry you apparently just didn't know that blaming "the media" is a very common Republican tactic, but try to pay attention going forward.
"Confirmation bias," is another important phenomenon here. I feel I must apologize though, you're making so little progress here I do not feel like discussing it further.
phantomfive, any comment? I was just speculating that you hadn't read the Pew poll.
It's clear to me that this is a Republican tactic, and, in fact, I can trace it back close to its surge under the Newt Gingrich house, but I always welcome outside opinions. I find it completely disgusting that a group of folks would attempt to wave a hand and make all media criticism go away, AND I find it quite honorable to take any questions head own without crying, but it's possible that I have the entire world upside down.
What say ye? I am open to all informed commentary. :-)
No no, I read the poll, it's irrelevant. For any political tactic, it is likely that one party will use it more than the other. Whether Republicans complain more about it recently than Democrats or not......in 50 years, it could be flipped the other way. (Incidentally, I find it fascinating that the only media source trusted across the board was the WSJ. Not sure what to think about that.)
The biggest thing that annoys me about you is that you seem only able to see faults in the 'other' party, not in your own. That is a sign of immaturity. Wise people look hardest for faults in their own position.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."